KEY POINTS
- Parliamentary adviser Piia Schults was terminated following three decades of service after a legislative drafting mistake
- The error, approved in December, inadvertently eliminated taxation on online casinos for 2026
- The oversight creates a €4 million shortfall in Estonia’s anticipated tax revenue
- Schults intends to pursue legal action, arguing her termination was unjustified and based on inaccurate statements
- Chancellery Director Antero Habicht defended the decision as “unavoidable and necessary”
An experienced legislative adviser in Estonia is gearing up to challenge her dismissal in court after losing her position over an error in the nation’s gambling taxation legislation.
Piia Schults dedicated more than 30 years to Estonia’s Riigikogu Chancellery before her employment was abruptly terminated due to a drafting mistake that fell under her responsibility and passed through the legislative approval process.
The error appeared in the Gambling Tax Act that received parliamentary approval in December. The mistake unintentionally eliminated taxation requirements for online casino operations throughout 2026.
This legislative oversight has created a €4 million deficit in Estonia’s projected tax collections. Government officials must now address the financial consequences resulting from the drafting failure.
Schults has acknowledged the mistake occurred. In an interview with Estonian public broadcaster ERR, she characterized it as “indeed terrible” and stated she was “very shaken by it.”
Nevertheless, she emphasized this represented the first such error throughout her extensive professional tenure. She characterized her work as more than simply employment—describing it as a “mission.”
Former Adviser Claims Inaccurate Statements Forced Public Response
Schults maintains her termination stemmed partially from her choice to engage with media outlets. According to her account, damage to reputation was presented as the primary justification for her dismissal.
She explained to ERR that initially she preferred to avoid public discussion of the matter. However, she felt compelled to respond after Riigikogu Chancellery Director Antero Habicht made statements she characterizes as factually incorrect.
“There were claims there that simply were not correct,” she stated. She confirmed she has already engaged legal counsel to prepare her challenge.
Schults indicated she is more inclined to pursue her case through the judicial system rather than Estonia’s labor dispute resolution committee. She believes the proceedings could establish important legal precedents regarding how government officials are treated when errors occur.
“I think this is quite an important case,” she explained to ERR. She hopes her legal challenge might also provide encouragement to other colleagues who could face comparable circumstances.
She conveyed appreciation for the public backing she has received since her dismissal became known. “People have written and called me, and I truly appreciate it,” she said.
Chancellery Leadership Stands Behind Termination Decision
Habicht addressed the matter with a concise public statement. He characterized the termination as “unavoidable and necessary,” explaining that the trust required to maintain the professional relationship had been irreparably damaged.
He refused to provide additional commentary, pointing to the anticipated legal proceedings. He also clarified that elected officials played no role in the dismissal decision.
When questioned about whether Schults had received previous warnings or encountered performance issues, Habicht explained that such matters are typically addressed verbally and kept confidential. He neither confirmed nor denied any previous incidents.
He verified that disciplinary actions followed procedures established in Estonia’s Civil Service Act. This framework requires that employees receive an opportunity to present explanations and objections prior to any final determination.
Schults stated she considers pursuing court action as an obligation. “It has been a very difficult period and I am very grateful to people. But I feel it is my duty to take this matter to court,” she concluded.
